Trenton Oldfield, who disrupted the Boat Race in a so-called protest against élitism. has been sent down for six months. Here are the Judge's sentencing remarks, setting out with impeccable clarity the reasoning behind the sentence.
We blogged about the case here and here and here.
Mr. Oldfield will probably have woken up this morning in the less than élite company of the other 1200 or so inmates of Wormwood Scrubs.
What it if......
ReplyDeleteEmily Wilding Davison, on 4 June 1913, you stepped in front of King George V's horse running in the Epsom Derby. You intended to disrupt the race and you did so. You have been convicted of Public Nuisance. Thousands of people had lined the banks of the river to enjoy a sporting competition. Many more were watching at home on live television............
The main difference here is that Emily Davison had a cause, this guy just has some vague prejudice against a sporting event.
DeleteI expect, too, that had Emily Davison survived, she would have been arrested.
That's the part of the summing up i don't agree with - "You acted disproportionately. There were many other ways in which you could have promoted your views more effectively."
Yes, but it likely wouldn't have got the same attention. The only problem here is, as the judge says - "It was not clear to anyone who saw what you did what your views actually were."
Emily Davison's actions were considerably more serious because of the injuries suffered by the jockey. I think she should rightly have been charged had she survived.
DeleteShort and to the point - as ever.
ReplyDeleteThree months will be served so out in plenty of time for the next boat race then!
ReplyDeleteMany violent offences against the person get lesser sentences.
ReplyDeleteThat may be so, but the relevant case law for Public Order Offences shows the following:
DeleteR v Millward 1986 8 Cr App R S 209
D infatuated with female police officer. Substantial phone calls etc. Sentenced on many occasions including custody. 30 months prison upheld on this occasion.
R v Ruffell 1991 13 Cr App R (S) 204
Illegal rave organiser. 12 months prison, suspended, and 7000 fine. Fine overturned on appeal due to means.
R v Ong 2001 1 Cr App R (S) 117
Plan to turn off lights at Premiership football match. D intended to financially gain by placing bets. 4 years.
R v Eskdale 2002 1 Cr App R (S) 28
1000 phone calls in 2 weeks to 15 complainants. Sexual nature. Made one woman stand naked in front of window. Sexual history. Described as dangerous. 9 years.
R v Lowrie [2005] 1 Cr App R (S)
G plea to hoax phone calls to emergency services. Numerous pre cons for like resulting in last sentence of 5 years. 8 years upheld on appeal.
So maybe he was lucky to get away with 6 months when you consider the dangerousness of his action.
Millward 1986: many previous convictions
DeleteRuffell 1991: Custodial sentence suspended without appeal
Ong 2011: A conspiracy with a financial motive
Eskdale 2002: Sexual predator. Previous ?
Lowrie 2005: numerous previous convictions
Net, 'that may be so', indeed, and the sentence is disproportionate..
Bravo (for the accent) !
ReplyDeleteAre people seriously saying that Oldfield's actions were SO SERIOUS that neither a fine nor a community sentence could be justified? (That's supposed to be the legal test for imposing imprisonment - the so-called custody threshold). If so, no wonder the prisons are bursting at the seams. Why wouldn't making him do 300 hours unpaid work would have been appropriate?
ReplyDeleteRemember, Oldfield was a man of previous good character.
The case has given his "cause" more publicity that it probably deserves.
Of course, he would not have any discount for a guilty plea but please remember that he was charged with a somewhat vague common law offence and, if at all possible, statutory offences should be used in preference. (There's high legal authority for that). Little wonder that, in the circumstances, he ran a trial.
A final though from me. The very charge "public nuisance" with its maximum penalty of LIFE imprisonment probably resulted in the case attracting a greater penalty. This is where the court itself seems to me to have lost a sense of proportion.
Thank goodness; thought I was the only one.
ReplyDeleteI can see the deterrent value of a custodial sentence, but Hizonner* did not try to justify the custody threshold in this way. Instead she chose to focus on culpability and harm, and for the life of me I do not see how she has managed to cross the custody line on those two alone.
* Willing to be corrected on this epithet.
Hironner? No, doesn't really work does it?
DeleteI have met this judge,and she deserves better then that.
Heronner works fine. Why struggle to insert an alien 'i' when the root clearly calls for an 'e'?
DeleteAlways place for another political prisoner.
ReplyDeleteI think Judges have private guidance about aggravating factors, one of which must be "Was the offence seen on TV?"
ReplyDeleteHo-hum, you get far far less for beating someone up...
ReplyDeleteI can't get my head around the judiciary...
I think the point there is that the sentence for violent crime (£50 for punching a copper - personal experience)is too low. not that this one is too high!
ReplyDeleteSurey it is now inappropriate to make a reasoned comment about this sentence without risking disciplinary action.
ReplyDeleteOnly for JOHs, which includes BS.
ReplyDeleteTo "translate" - only for 'judicial office holders', which includes Bystander.
ReplyDeleteMOVG - which may or may include certain personages who now make up the Bystander Team!! :-)
ReplyDeleteOh bottoms which may or may NOT include etc...
DeleteI have had to delete a post that tried to suggest the authorship of a particular comment. Any piece might be authored by anyone, JP or not.
DeleteIt being understood of course that this means "any piece might - at any time in the blog's existence - have been authored by anyone, JP or not."
DeleteThis is actually beyond Kafkaesque and into the land of the deranged now. Is there any chance of the inner cabal of the Magistrates Assoc. lifting the ban on interesting and purposeful comment, or is it likely to stay? Struggling to stay with your team now, to be honest.
DeleteThe MA has nothing to do with the blog. As for the 'guidance' we don't know who cooked it up, just that the MA and NBCF tamely nodded it through withthe SPJ
Deletepity he hadn't got more than 12 months then they could have considered sending him back to Oz....but I suppose that would have just spurned a lot more litigation!
ReplyDeleteLawyers have never spurned litigation. It may well have spawned some though.
ReplyDeleteQuite so
Delete